Category Archives: Environmental

A Step Forward for CCS as a CDM Project Activity

By: Ana Maria Radu

PDF Version: A Step Forward for CCS as a CDM Project Activity

Report Commented On: Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) Technical Workshop on the eligibility of carbon capture and storage projects under the clean development mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, released on November 8th, 2011

In December 2010, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties (CMP) to the Kyoto Protocol (KP), by its decision 7/CMP.6, decided that carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) in geological formations would be eligible as a project activity under the clean development mechanism (CDM), provided that the following issues could be addressed and resolved in a satisfactory manner:

  • non-permanence, including long-term permanence;
  • measuring, reporting and verification;
  • environmental impacts;
  • project activity boundaries;
  • international law;
  • liability;
  • the potential for perverse outcomes;
  • safety ,and
  • insurance coverage and compensation for damages caused due to seepage or leakage.

(See also Nigel Bankes’ blog on CCS and CDM: the eligibility of carbon capture and storage projects under the clean development mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol – the Cancun Meeting of the Conference of the Parties)

Parties and admitted observer organizations were invited to submit their views on how to address and manage these issues. Ten admitted observer organizations and Australia, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), the European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Norway, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and USA (as an observer state to KP) responded the invitation. Also, the Secretariat hosted a technical workshop with technical and legal experts to consider these submissions and to discuss the issues referred to in decision 7/CMP.6. The workshop, held in Abu Dhabi on September 7th and 8th 2011 clarified some of the technical and legal issues in its report and suggested possible solutions.

Continue reading →

The theory and the practice of well abandonment and surface reclamation in Alberta: the latest episode in the dismal saga of Sarg Oils Limited

PDF version: The theory and the practice of well abandonment and surface reclamation in Alberta: the latest episode in the dismal saga of Sarg Oils Limited

Decision commented on: Sarg Oils Limited, Review of Abandonment Orders AD 2006-17, AD 2006-17A, AD 2006-18, AD 2006-19 and AD 2006-20, November 15, 2011, 2011 AERCB 032.

Well over ten years ago Sarg Oils sold oil and gas assets to another party. The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) refused to consent to the transfer of the well licences associated with those assets and as a result Sarg was left with the responsibility of abandoning those facilities. And when Sarg refused, the ERCB did the job itself and sent the bill to Sarg; and when Sarg didn’t pay (and the Court of Appeal ruled that this was a lawful debt owing to the Board: ERCB v Sarg Oils Ltd, 2002 ABCA 174) the ERCB garnisheed other assets of Sarg (the Southern Alberta assets). Sarg didn’t like that and shut the facilities in – owing by this time in excess of $1 million. The Board informed the province of this dastardly deed and the province triggered the procedures under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Tenure Regulation (Alta Reg 267/1997, s18) to terminate the leases on those Southern Alberta assets. Since Sarg no longer had the right to exploit the resources on those terminated leases, the ERCB ordered Sarg (2006) to abandon the related wells and facilities. Sarg did nothing about this except to seek a section 40 review (this application) under the Energy Resources Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c E-10) of the Board orders. And now, five years later, the Board has concluded that the orders “are valid and will be upheld” (at para 148). And now, Sarg must really get on with it! Whew! Unless of course Sarg seeks leave to appeal.

Continue reading →

Polar Bear ‘Special Concern’ Designation Raises Some Concerns of Its Own

PDF version: Polar Bear ‘Special Concern’ Designation Raises Some Concerns of Its Own

Decision considered: Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act SOR/2011-233 October 27, 2011.

On November 10, 2011, the Federal Government released its decision to list the polar bear as “special concern” under Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29, hereinafter “SARA”). This decision has been a long time coming. This post reflects on the significance of the decision, and specifically two concerns it raises with the listing process under SARA.

Continue reading →

Why Canada Should Not Withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Why Canada Should Not Withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol 

Rumours abound that Canada will withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol later this month. While Canada’s Minister of the Environment, Peter Kent, will not confirm these rumours (Montreal Gazette, November 29, 2011) there is reason for thinking that withdrawal is being actively considered if not already decided on (see “Canada to pull out of Kyoto Protocol next month“?)

This post discusses four questions. First, what is the law pertaining to withdrawal from an international environmental agreement (MEA)? Second, why is withdrawal being considered and what other options are available? Third, what might be some of the ramifications of a Canadian withdrawal? And fourth, what is the legal nature of the current commitment: whom does it bind?

Continue reading →

Public Interest Standing and a Statutory Right of Appeal

PDF version: Public Interest Standing and a Statutory Right of Appeal

Case Considered: Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2011 ABCA 302

The Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development (“Pembina”) recently sought leave of the Alberta Court of Appeal to appeal the June 30, 2011 interim decision of the Alberta Utilities Commission (“AUC”) to approve the construction of a coal-fired power generation facility by Maxim Power Corp. (“Maxim”) in Alberta. In Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2011 ABCA 302, Madam Justice Patricia Rowbotham denies the Pembina application for leave to appeal. However in her reasons for decision, Justice Rowbotham adds to the Alberta jurisprudence on public interest standing. I will first describe the parameters of the leave application before discussing the standing matter.

Continue reading →